Immediate effects of Aussie Current on chronic low back pain: a randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To analyze the immediate analgesic effects of Aussie Current on chronic low back pain using different parameters. METHODS: A total of 105 patients (aged 18-80 years, of both sexes, with chronic low back pain) were randomized into five groups: AG1kHz/100Hz, AG1kHz/2Hz, AG4kHz/100Hz, AG4kHz/2Hz, and placebo. All participants underwent a single application of the Aussie Current for 30 min. The assessments were conducted before and immediately after the intervention, with the following outcomes: pain intensity using the numerical pain rating scale, McGill Pain Questionnaire, mechanical pain threshold, and five-times-sit-to-stand test before and immediately after the intervention. The Start-Back Questionnaire was administered before the intervention to analyze the physical and psychosocial factors related to chronic lower back pain. RESULTS: In the intragroup analysis, all groups showed significant differences in the numerical pain rating scale and total McGill Pain Questionnaire index. For the mechanical pain threshold, a significant difference was observed in the AG1kHz/100Hz Group at three points in the lumbar region and in the five-times-sit-to-stand test at AG1kHz/100Hz, AG1kHz/2Hz, and AG4kHz/100Hz. In the intergroup comparison, there was a significant difference in the numerical pain rating scale scores between the AG1kHz/100Hz and AG1kHz/2Hz Groups in the Placebo Group. CONCLUSION: Aussie Current provides an immediate analgesic effect in individuals with chronic low back pain; however, there is no consensus on the ideal parameters.ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: RBR-98HJ9X.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".